They say the air is different under the dome. Maybe that’s why so many legislators think a constitutional amendment is urgently needed to prevent the Kansas Supreme Court from exercising a kind of nuclear option come fall — a shutdown of the state’s K-12 schools. But I’m with Senate Vice President John Vratil, R-Leawood, on this: “It makes absolutely no sense to me that the court would close schools when the major contention of the lawsuit is that children aren’t getting an adequate education.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
28 Comments
For the legislature in Topeka to focus on an amendment to limit the power of the court is only a delay tactic, just one more instance of our so-called representatives to shirk the duty they were elected for. Why in heavens name can’t they just do what we sent them to Topeka for — fund schools, and other legitimate acts for the people of Kansas. They need to stop with the wrangling about the Supreme Court. It’s just bruised egos talking. Maybe time’s time to clean “House.”
Doug Mays can’t even lead those in the House. What makes him think he can lead the State? Right now we need a leader who can cross party lines for the benefit of our children, but Mays only wants confrontation. Right now we need our elected leaders to fulfill their oath of office, but Mays insists on continued lawlessness. Right now we need leaders to accept that the Court’s order was legitimate. But Mays wants to ignore 200 years of Supreme Court precedent giving the Court its authority. The answer for Kansas is not to get rid of the Court, it is to get rid of Mays and his cronies (O’Neal, Decker, Miller, and others).
It is a 3 branch government for a reason. so that not any one branch has all the power.
I see for too many people are ready to put all their fatih in mere human beings in black robes.
Keep in mind that these same people in robes are the ones who used to be the but of all the immorality jokes about lawyers.
All of a sudden everyone wants to think that their word is the golden standard?
Nathan,
Were you so critical when the Supreme Court handed over the presidency to Bush?
D.A. Rider,
Explain to me how the Supreme Court handed over the presidency and then we’ll talk.
Get serious.
D.A. Rider,
That is exactly what I am asking you to do is to get serious.
With who?
D.A.,
Did Nathan just ask you to “get serious”? Know what that sounds like? Bro, I’d watch that guy if I was you.
Jeez, D.A.! I missed that one all together.
The Kansas Constitution says the legislature must provide a “suitable” education. When did suitable come to mean how much money schools get? Shouldn’t suitable mean are the children learning or how well they are doing on standardized tests compared with the rest of America or some other rule stick we can look at and decide if our children are getting a proper education. The lawsuit wanted more funding for bilingual and special education…yet the court ordered additional base funding. Where is that justified in the original lawsuit? The legislature wasn’t even named in the lawsuit. How would you like to be ordered to pay someone because of a lawsuit where you weren’t allowed defend yourself and weren’t named as a defendant?
Anyone…name a court case where a court ordered a legislative branch to increase spending by a specific amount that was upheld after further scrutiny.
For those of you who missed the question to which I was asking you to get serious about (which I only used “get serious” since I thought it was in response to the question the first time I asked)
Explain to me how the Supreme Court handed George Bush the presidency?
If you believe that statement, which I figure you do since you said it, you must have some evidence for support?
Simply because you type it doesnt make it true.
My vote didn’t go to either Gore or Bush, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court handed Bush a victory even though the majority of American voters chose his opponent. Want proof? Look it up yourself. Do you deny that the Supreme Court decided the outcome of the 2000 election? Was Bush not the one the court chose? Nathan, this is all pretty simple. What part of it don’t you get? Do you really think you’re being cunning with your little word games?
James: Miliken v. Bradley, 1976, U.S. Supreme Court upholds order of lower court directing State of Michigan to pay $5.8M to Detroit public schools. Spallone v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court upheld contempt sanctions against the City for failing to remedy an unconstitutional law even though individual lawmakers were not party to the lawsuit. And with regard to the present lawsuit, the evidence was that 88% of all African-American, 87% of all Hispanic, 78% of all kids qualifying for free and reduced lunch, and, in fact, 51% of ALL kids are failing 10th grade math assessments. The scores are similar in other areas and grades. So are these kids getting a suitable education?
The facts and the law are clearly on the side of the court, and the kids, in this case.
D.A. Rider,
I fail to see how asking you to prove your assertion is a “word game.”
In answer to your questions (watch how easy this is to answer a question)
“Do you deny that the Supreme Court decided the outcome of the 2000 election?”
YES
“Was Bush not the one the court chose?”
NO
“Nathan, this is all pretty simple. What part of it don’t you get?”
THE PART WHERE YOU SAY THE SUPREME COURT HANDED GW THE ELECTION. (which is why I keep asking by the way…)
“Do you really think you’re being cunning with your little word games?”
NO
Nathan, now you’ve just entirely lost touch with reality. Wow! Prattle all you want, this discussion is done.
Nathan, now you’ve just entirely lost touch with reality. Wow! Prattle all you want, this discussion is done.
D.A. Rider,
Let me guess. Saying I have lost touch with reality is not an attack?
Anyhow,
If I have lost touch with reality why is it so hard for you to explain to me how the Supreme Court handed GW the presidency?
I see that you still cant defend your assertion and all you do is focus your comments on me personally.
FedUpWithHouse: I think you’re trying to mislead me.
Milliken v. Bradley (two l’s, not one) 1976 was a school desegregation case where the city of Detroit was ordered to desegregate its schools more thoroughly than it had in the past (quite simplified explanation.) Milliken named above was the governor of Michigan at the time and therefore WAS named as a defendant whereas the current school finance suit was directed toward the State Board of Education…not the legislature.
Also, the Court of Appeals wrote in their order that…
“(The District Court’s order) imposes NO MONEY JUDGMENT ON THE STATE OF MICHIGAN for past de jure segregation practices. Rather, the order is directed toward the State defendants as a part of a prospective plan to comply with a constitutional requirement to eradicate all vestiges of de jure segregation.”
So you’re wrong that the court ordered the legislative body to provide more money to Detroit schools. The named defendants were ordered to provide the money, even though ultimately they probably used state funds to do it. This is a very different case indeed than what I asked for. Don’t be like all the other liberals and try to mislead people like W.R. above when he found out the legislature had proposed plans.
Spallone v. U.S.
Now, this case is a little different because you did not cite a year for this case…therefore I don’t know if I have researched the correct case or not. However…Spallone v. U.S. 1988 was a case where the US government (not a school board) among others sued the city of Yonkers, NY because the city kept its housing developments (predominately minorities) in the SW corner of the city thereby segregating its schools in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
This case doesn’t apply to the current school finance case for several reasons. First, Spallone cited above was the vice-mayor of Yonkers at the time, therefore he was cited as a defendant whereas in the current suit the legislature or any member of the legislature has NEVER been named as a defendant. Big difference.
Second, this case involves a city council, not a state legislative body. Also, both of these cases were filed in federal court whereas the current suit was filed and stayed in state court. Also a big difference. Neither of these cases involved two co-equal governing bodies such as a state legislature and a state court. These cases involved real people who got the chance to defend themselves (an opportunity denied to state legislators in our current school finance fiasco) and these cases deal with federal law in a federal court with municipalities, not states.
As far as test scores, you’re going to have to tell me which standardized tests that 10th graders are failing by such large numbers. Unless I know the name of the test, I can’t research it to see if you’re telling me the whole truth or not.
How about it prosecutor…can you name those tests?
James,
Wow. It is nice to see at least one other person around her who seeks the truth.
Here’s what cracks me up about what James has said…
If the lawyer provides the testing info and it checks out that minorities are not succeeding then it shows that the increases in base aid are not justified and schools are just greedy. But if the info doesn’t check out then he’s just a liar.
Quite the catch 22 you’ve been put in FedUpWithHouse. But you’re apparently a lawyer so I’m sure you’ll talk your way out of it somehow.
Good morning Nathan. Forgive the move to this blog, but a nutcase took up residence on the Gitmo blog, so I figured we can continue here if that’s ok with you.
Are we prepared to continue in your quest for the answers and truth?
Refresh me…where were we?
So, Rhonda, what do you think about the possibility of the Justices going “nuclear” now????
I found you, w.r., miserable excuse that you are for a sentient being.
The court threatens to go nuclear because they are part of our plan for dhimmi in Kansas.
And a cheery goodmorning to you too, Ali,
Still got an intreat in my “fritters” I see,
Your style rings a bell,
I’ll see you in hell,
You’re preverted and strange as can be.
And a cheery goodmorning to you too, Ali,
Still got an intrest in my “fritters” I see,
Your style rings a bell,
I’ll see you in hell,
You’re preverted and strange as can be.
And a cheery goodmorning to you too, Ali,
Still got an intrest in my “fritters” I see,
Your style rings a bell,
I’ll see you in hell,
You’re preverted and strange as can be.
James,
Good work! Thanks.